[GandalfTheGrey]

Let's move on to the really important question: What has German society done to these guys that they have become so alienated?

And let's not jump to conclusions about their motives. This is complex and no matter what they say themselves and the evidence that is found, the real reason is the appalling treatment they have received from society.

Oh very fucking funny

You may mock people for identifying the very real phenomenon of institutionalised discrimination and implicit racism against actual cultural minorities - and then bring this tired idiotic strawman about apologising for terrorism. But you can't simply ignore the difference between that and some privileged rich white boys in a solid career path - who decide they are bored with their privilege and decide to get ideological or (in the case of Dortmund) greedy.

[noir]

[skinster]

It's long tradition of Islamic propagandists to suppress the truth. The German left is more than happy to go with Islamo Fascists with this issue

The topic of this thread is about recent false-flag plots in Germany. You are off-topic. Hopefully one of the moderators will deal with you since I reported your posts.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

While I know this is sarcasm there is an element of truth to this. It's probably not merely that they don't like Muslims, lots of people don't, it takes a special sauce to do something horrible like this. I suspect that their main motive may well have been the desire to do something awful and a sense of alienation and anger. They put all those feelings onto a specific societal ill and tried to kill it.

Maybe, although you will probably find alienation and anger together with a dislike for individuals or groups in lots of criminals and non-criminals alike. But my post was really about how terrorists apparently have almost no agency. Of course, in real life this argument won't fly with the terrorists in the OP.

Oh very fucking funny

You may mock people for identifying the very real phenomenon of institutionalised discrimination and implicit racism against actual cultural minorities - and then bring this tired idiotic strawman about apologising for terrorism. But you can't simply ignore the difference between that and some privileged rich white boys in a solid career path - who decide they are bored with their privilege and decide to get ideological or (in the case of Dortmund) greedy.

Racism against cultural minorities? Yes, that idea should certainly be mocked.

But really, if you are right that life in the west is so awful that minorities cannot help but produce terrorists, then that's a strong argument against continued immigration for the time being. Clearly, these people need to be protected and kept apart from our terribly "racist" societies so that they cannot be turned into terrorists by us.

But let's be honest, the vast majority of minority groups actually do not respond with terrorism to whatever real or imagined hardship they may face.

[GandalfTheGrey]

But really, if you are right that life in the west is so awful that minorities cannot help but produce terrorists, then that's a strong argument against continued immigration for the time being.

Actually its an argument against being awful to minorities.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Actually its an argument against being awful to minorities.

Actually it isn't any longer. We've been trying this for decades and things have only got worse, e.g. how many Islamic terrorist attacks - or any terrorist attacks by minorities for that matter - were there in Germany or France in the 70s and 80s?

There's also the inconvenient fact that other minorities don't have to be prevented from becoming terrorists - e.g. why isn't there a terrorist threat from the most disliked minority in Europe, the Roma? But feel free to ignore this point and continue to blame our societies.

Try as we might, life is terrible for minorities. We are clearly irredeemable, so it's best to prevent minorities from coming to our awfully racist societies.

[GandalfTheGrey]

so it's best to prevent minorities from coming to our awfully racist societies.

Yeah and how likely do you think that is? Dreaming of closed borders in this globalised era is sheer fantasy. It just aint gonna happen. The only option you have is work out ways to better integrate them. And there's lots of things that can be done.

Besides, lets have some perspective please. The contribution of minorities to western societies has overwhelmingly been positive - even muslims.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Yeah and how likely do you think that is? Dreaming of closed borders in this globalised era is sheer fantasy. It just aint gonna happen. The only option you have is work out ways to better integrate them. And there's lots of things that can be done.

I'm not dreaming of closed borders, although I'm definitely against open borders which are in no way a foregone conclusion. But regardless, this is one of these intellectually lazy arguments which presupposes that a current trend must continue indefinitely.

I note that you again deny that minorities have any agency and responsibility. Apparently, everybody except the minority needs to bend over backwards, otherwise the inevitable result is terrorism. Why would anybody, who isn't ridden by guilt and has retained some common sense, accept this?

Besides, lets have some perspective please. The contribution of minorities to western societies has overwhelmingly been positive - even muslims.

Questionable claim. It depends on the minority, the country's immigration policy and the circumstances under which immigration happens. Even in NZ the evidence is not clear cut. In fact, other than assertions of faith repeated like a mantra, there is to my knowledge no NZ-specific evidence that mass immigration over the last few decades has measurably benefited Kiwis.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I'm not dreaming of closed borders, although I'm definitely against open borders which are in no way a foregone conclusion. But regardless, this is one of these intellectually lazy arguments which presupposes that a current trend must continue indefinitely.

Kaiser, you want to talk about intellectually lazy arguments? You literally just said - and I quote "it's best to prevent minorities from coming to our awfully racist societies". And while I give you the benefit of the doubt that this was said tongue in cheek, you certainly aren't forthcoming with any serious alternative solutions - that would pass for anything resembling a "non-lazy" intellectual argument.

And so after making this crass comment about banning all minorities without any nuance or qualifications, you expect me to heed your protestations that your not dreaming of closed borders.

So, now's probably the time to elaborate on your "semi-closed border" solution. I'll be especially interested to understand how it differs from the current immigration policies of most of the west. What (further) restrictions are you advocating and how will it make the west any safer than it is now?

[GandalfTheGrey]

There's also the inconvenient fact that other minorities don't have to be prevented from becoming terrorists - e.g. why isn't there a terrorist threat from the most disliked minority in Europe, the Roma? But feel free to ignore this point and continue to blame our societies.

This is a dishonest argument.

Looking at the "threat" posed by immigrants from only one prism is misleading. Why not factor in *ALL* the criminal threats to society posed by immigrants/minorities other than terrorism? Is terrorism the only immigrant crime that destroys people's lives? Of course not. Drugs, gang violence, prostitution, human trafficking etc etc - crimes in which muslims by no means have a monopoly on. What are the Roma crime rates? It'd be good if you looked at the success of the intergration of Roma (didn't Sarkozy start mass deporting them from France?) before you started branding muslims as worse than them.

[AFAIK]

Japan has strict immigration controls and aggressive FDI programs. It spends significant sums on upgrading the infrastructure of 3rd world countries to facilitate trade and business for all. Its economic policies have moved millions out of poverty without creating a heterogeneous underclass in its own society. Minorities and disfavoured castes are treated poorly in Japan but terrorism and violent crime in general is rare.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Kaiser, you want to talk about intellectually lazy arguments? You literally just said - and I quote "it's best to prevent minorities from coming to our awfully racist societies". And while I give you the benefit of the doubt that this was said tongue in cheek, you certainly aren't forthcoming with any serious alternative solutions - that would pass for anything resembling a "non-lazy" intellectual argument.

And so after making this crass comment about banning all minorities without any nuance or qualifications, you expect me to heed your protestations that your not dreaming of closed borders.

So, now's probably the time to elaborate on your "semi-closed border" solution. I'll be especially interested to understand how it differs from the current immigration policies of most of the west. What (further) restrictions are you advocating and how will it make the west any safer than it is now?

It should hopefully be clear from my posts that I strongly reject the idea that our societies are such terrible places for minorities to live in. But if I believed it, why would I be in favour of subjecting minorities to these awfully racist circumstances, where they not only are held back by prejudice from becoming successful but actually have an increased risk of being turned into a terrorist?

As for my preferred immigration policy, I would take the phony morality out of it and base it on real measurable outcomes. Look at how different immigrant groups are doing in terms of their economic performance and cultural assimilation and adjust the policy accordingly. This would necessarily include family reunion. Further, don't use immigration to ignore problems and push them into the future, such as demographic decline, and for superficial purposes, such as headline GDP growth through population growth. Finally, take into account how opposed people in your country are to immigration rather than ignoring and demonising them, as it will go a long way in preventing them from "feeling like a stranger in their own country" or "no longer recognising their country", which, in my view, is one of the main drivers of the current political division and polarisation.

Of course, the above is so far away from today's situation, I might as well describe an alternative universe. I would actually already be elated if we could get our definitions of refugee, asylum seeker, and illegal and legal immigrant straight and devise policies, together with the political will to implement them, that discourage illegal immigration and the exploitation of our asylum systems. Which brings me back to the OP and Franco A who was able to register as a refugee in Germany!

This is a dishonest argument.

Looking at the "threat" posed by immigrants from only one prism is misleading. Why not factor in *ALL* the criminal threats to society posed by immigrants/minorities other than terrorism? Is terrorism the only immigrant crime that destroys people's lives? Of course not. Drugs, gang violence, prostitution, human trafficking etc etc - crimes in which muslims by no means have a monopoly on. What are the Roma crime rates? It'd be good if you looked at the success of the intergration of Roma (didn't Sarkozy start mass deporting them from France?) before you started branding muslims as worse than them.

It requires a special kind of loathing of society and its people for someone to have the wish to inflict maximum lethal damage on civilians and in some cases to face certain death in the process.

But regardless, my question to you and others who'd like to ignore the elephant in the room is why do different minorities respond differently to the hellholes that are our western societies. Extrapolating from your terrorism argument, I take it that you also believe the Roma are driven to commit crimes by us. So tell us, GtG, why do you think have the Roma in their long history in Europe and being subject to at least the same amount of "prejudice, racism and discrimination" never resorted to suicide bombing or driving lorries into crowds in Christmas markets?

[GandalfTheGrey]

So tell us, GtG, why do you think have the Roma in their long history in Europe and being subject to at least the same amount of "prejudice, racism and discrimination" never resorted to suicide bombing or driving lorries into crowds in Christmas markets?

For a couple of reasons. Firstly they are not a religious minority - especially not one that has a particularly virulent variant of blood crazed hatred, and not one that has international role models imploring them to commit slaughter with the promise that it will book them a place in eternal paradise. Secondly - you said so yourself, they have a very long history of continuous prejudice and discrimination. We have some understanding on what that does on group psychology. Look up Zimbardo's prison experiment - and see how dramatically the abused prisoners seemed to accept their abuse- they stopped fighting and became utterly pathetic. And in the Roma you can see a real life demonstration of that very same psychological process. Believe it or not, we even have a muslim example - the Rohingya in Burma, which the UN has described as the most persecuted people on the planet. Yet apart from a few notable exceptions, they never seem to fight back, and just 'take it up the arse'.

So why are the muslim immigrants different? Well first of all, most of them aren't. The vast majority of disadvantaged muslims in Europe simply don't fight against their predicament. And thats a point that is too often overlooked in this debate. Nevertheless, I will concede that there does seem to be a disproportionate number of muslim immigrants who take the violent, terrorist route. I can think of a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, I refer to my first point - the existence of a globalised jihadist network that the local 'discontented' can aspire to. Secondly, unlike the Roma or the Rohingya, this wave of immigrants are new, they are not used to prejudice and 2nd class status (and no, I'm not saying its the reality, merely the perception). They have not, if you like, been sufficiently 'beaten into submission', and still have some fight in them. But the question remains - why are they different to any other 'new wave' immigrant? Why aren't they terrorists too (presuming they suffer the same prejudice/discrimination)? I believe the answer lies in the whole 'clash of civilizations' mythology. Islam and Christianity were the two greatest and powerful religions in Europe for nearly the entirety of post-Roman European history. Islam used to dominate Europe and the west - economically and culturally. Then Islam was superseded by Christianity, and the Islamic world has been bitter and jealous ever since. And of course the bitterest pill to swallow for them was the colonization (both physical and economic) of the Islamic world by the west - which in many ways continues to this day. Now I'm not saying the jihadis who drive lorries into crowds are that well versed in the history of the west that they are personally inspired by all the injustices of the past. It is a narrative that is so deeply ingrained in the culture, and is of course cynically exploited by muslim leaders and politicians.

Basically, Islam - as a political and cultural entity - has some unfinished business with the west, and the pawns in this political battle are the clueless jihadists who think not of political and cultural ends, but the rewards of paradise for blowing themselves up.

[Hong Wu]

I'm just going to leave this here since we're talking about false flags and plots:

[ArtAllm]

The old Nazis were of mixture right and left elements. Positive view on Muslims is also part of their dark history. Now we see a clash between two legacies, but according to official propaganda only the xenophobic are "Nazis".

Do not forget about the "love affair" between the Zionists and the National Socialists.

Lenni Brenner has written a scientific book about it.

What to book burning - you will be imprisoned in Germany if you disseminate non-violent books with a wrong opinion about some events of WWII, or even if you just ask wrong questions about these events.

And Amazon is now "burning" these wrong non-violent books.

BTW, do not forget that people, who burn books, sincerely believe that they themselves are "good guys", and the authors of burned books are "haters/bad guys".

That was the case under all regimes, even if these regimes called themselves "supporters of freedom".

[noir]

There wasn't any love affair. They tried to save the Jews. With the Muslims you collided to kill them.

[ArtAllm]

There wasn't any love affair. They tried to save the Jews. With the Muslims you collided to kill them.

If we read the quotes then we get the impression, that Zionists only needed young and healthy Jews for their colonial project in Palestine.
They did not care a lot about old and sick Jews, who were not useful for the Zionist project.
Read Lenni Brenner and educate yourself.

I was asked, 'Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?' I replied, 'No'....From the depths of the tragedy I want to save two million young people...The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They were dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world...Only the branch of the young shall survive...They have to accept it.

(Chaim Weizmann)

One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe.[2]

I think it is necessary to state here – Zionism is above everything. I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocate a sum of 300,000 or 100,000 pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act.

(Yitzhak Gruenbaum)

"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel".

(David Ben-Gurion)

Zionists were ready to kill Brits and collaborate with the National Socialists to get young and healthy Jews to Israel. They did not support any migration of Jews to any destination, except Palestine.

Late in 1940, Lehi, having identified a common interest between the intentions of the new German order and Jewish national aspirations, proposed forming an alliance in World War II with Nazi Germany.[2] It offered assistance in transferring the Jews of Europe to Palestine, in return for Germany's help in expelling Britain from Mandatory Palestine.[citation needed] Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik went to Beirut to meet German official Werner Otto von Hentig (who also was involved with the Haavara or Transfer Agreement, which had been transferring German Jews and their funds to Palestine since 1933).[citation needed] Lubenchik told von Hentig that Lehi had not yet revealed its full power and that they were capable of organizing a whole range of anti-British operations.[citation needed]

The organization offered cooperation in the following terms. Lehi would support sabotage and espionage operations in the Middle East and in eastern Europe anywhere where they had cells. Germany would recognize an independent Jewish state in Palestine/Eretz Israel, and all Jews leaving their homes in Europe, by their own will or because of government injunctions, could enter Palestine with no restriction of numbers.

Stern also proposed recruiting some 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe to invade Palestine with German support to oust the British.[2] On 11 January 1941, Vice Admiral Ralf von der Marwitz, the German Naval attaché in Turkey, filed a report (the "Ankara document") conveying an offer by Lehi to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich."[46][52][53]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

Hitler continued to mention the [Madagascar] plan until February 1942, when the idea was permanently shelved.[32] British Empire forces took the island from Vichy France in the Battle of Madagascar in November 1942 and control was transferred to the Free French.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

[GandalfTheGrey]

There wasn't any love affair. They tried to save the Jews. With the Muslims you collided to kill them.

The zionist leaders deliberately and callously put more jewish lives at risk in pursuit of their zionist project. They even blew up one of their refugee boats killing over 250 jews - for propaganda value.